LexGHANSHYAM versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GHANSHYAM v. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 29. 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973--s.32 I-Charge sheet filed ulss. I 471 307 /PC-Trial commenced-Application for withdrawal of prosecution filed A B by Public Prosecutor-Allowed by Sessions Judge-Upheld by High Court- C Correctness of-Held: Correct as High Court had carefully scrutinized and ensured that no extraneous consideration prevailed in moving such application-Public Prosecutor can at any stage, before the judgment move application for withdrawal of prosecution. Appeal-Plea-Belated plea-Application for withdrawal of D prosecution allowed by Sessions Judge and upheld by High Court in 1991-- Not challenged in last 15 years-Appellant challenging the withdrawal now in another case-Held: Appellant not justified in making such grievance. Writ petition-Challenging inaction of police authorities in registering complaint-High Court directed Superintendent of Police to register their E case-Grievance of opposite party that writ petition was filed after undue delay-Held: Not entertainable as order of High Court was based on report of DIG who had conducted enquiry at the instance of Court. his rented house along with anti-social elements to illegally evict him and According to appellant, on 8.11.1986, respondent no. 3-landlord entered F dismantle the house. When he tried to obstruct them, he got seriously injured. Appellant lodged FIR u/ss. 147/307 IPC against respondent no. 3 and his men. Charge-sheet was filed against respondent no. 3 and trial commenced. After sometime, the Public Prosecutor moved an application u/s. 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution. The Sessions Judge allowed the same. Appellant G preferred Revision against this, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, appellant did not challenge it. In 2004, Respondent no.3 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court complaining about the inaction on the part of police authorities in not I H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A registering his complaint and in not taking action against persons who had caused injuries to him and his sons on 8.11.1986. High Court on the basis of report of Deputy Director General directed the Superintendent of Police to register their case. Appellant filed application for recalling of this order, which was dismissed. B In these appeals, the appellant is aggrieved by (a) the order of withdrawal of the prosecution against respondent no.3 on the ground that respondent no.3 being a former Member of Parliament managed to get an order from the Government directing the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the criminal prosecution and (b) the direction passed by High Court in the writ petition as C it was filed after undue delay. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: l. According to the scheme of s. 321 Cr.P.C., the Public Prosecutor at any stage, before the judgment, can move the Court for D withdrawal of prosecution. The High Court was not oblivious ofth'e fact that an application under s. 321 Cr.P.C. had to be carefully scrutinized and ensured that no extraneous consideration had prevailed in moving such an application. The discretion to withdraw from the prosecution is that of the Public Prosecutor and none else, and so, he cannot surrender that discretion to any one. The Public Prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution not merely E on the ground of paucity of evidence but on other relevant factors as well, in order to further the broad ends of justice, public order, peace and tranquillity. The High Court while deciding the revision petition clearly observed that the material already available on record was insufficient to warrant conviction. The flow of facts and the possible result thereof as noticed by the Public F Prosecutor and appreciated by the Courts below, constituted the public interest in the withdrawal of the said prosecution. The High Court clearly came to the conclusion that the application for withdrawal of the prosecution and grant of consent were not based on extraneous considerations. 16-E-F, 7-H, 8-A-q 2. The Additional Sessions Judge permitted withdrawal of the G prosecution on an application moved by the Public Prosecutor under s. 321 Cr.P.C. The appellant had moved a criminal revision petitiGn before the High Court. The order of the High Court was passed in the year 1991 and the appellant never challenged that order in the last 15 years bef
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.